Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like everybody else, I compliment the Chairman on the fair and equitable manner in which she has conducted the meetings. I thank the delegates who came before the committee, each of whom had his or her own particular advice to give. They allowed themselves to be challenged, which is what the committee is about. It has been a very successful exercise. It is not so much that we have learned more but that we introduced checks and balances in the committee's job and what it is about. As other speakers mentioned, this will ultimately be an issue for the people. They alone will decide on it. It is completely outside our remit to recommend how they should decide. We need to recognise the importance of the investigative job we have been trying to do which has involved introducing checks and balance in the presentation of the various submissions made. We need to review what we found when we were reassured, or not as the case may be, in the course of our hearings.

I have always held the view that there are two opposing sides in the debate in this country and there have been since 1983. Each side has called for the holding of a referendum at one time or another in the past ten years. I have the correspondence to prove it. It goes without saying a referendum will take place and both sides in the debate have asked for one to be held. We have discovered a number of issues where matters need to be improved. A number of voids in the system need to be filled. For example, it appears that there is an extreme lack of counselling and support services for women with crisis pregnancies. The lack of advice and support of a medical and psychological nature is obvious to us all. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the women in question when we look at the situation that has been presented to us. We need to ask ourselves whether it is fair that they should be left alone, isolated and treated as if they did not exist. The fact of the matter is that we have to deal with this issue.

I draw a dramatic contrast with the way in which pregnant women were treated in the past. Sadly, it is now coming back to haunt us. We tended to cast out pregnant women and regard them as inferior citizens and human beings. We regarded them as an embarrassment. We cast them out and left it to somebody else to look after them. It was a crying shame that we did what we did to so many women in previous years. I hope we have learned the lesson, which is not to allow such things to occur again. There is a need to accommodate. I am not in favour of abortion, as I have always said during the years, but it now appears that there are reasons particular issues need to be addressed. These issues have been the subject of our discussions in recent weeks.

Apart from the need to put counselling and ancillary services in place as a matter of urgency, there is also a need to dwell on issues such as rape, incest and crisis pregnancies in which fatal foetal abnormalities are detected. It is a serious crisis for the woman in question, more so than anybody else. It is a question of whether she feels competent to address the issue presented to her. Does she feel mentally and physically strong enough to take responsibility for what is coming her way? I remind the committee that I am talking about a woman who has medical evidence in front of her that tells her what will happen. When medical evidence was produced to us by families who had direct experience of being in this situation, the extent to which they wanted to be accommodated was obvious to me. They did not necessarily want to have an abortion, but they wanted some advice and help. They wanted to know with whom they could share their problems. I am thinking particularly of a case in which it might be the only pregnancy or child a woman might have. It is obvious to me that there is a crying need to ensure whatever can be done by way of backup, support, advice and help should be done at the earliest possible date. If we do not do this, we are ignoring a serious matter.

I would be one of the first to recognise that we have to observe the law. We change the law when we have to change it. That is a matter for the Oireachtas, but in this case, it is a matter, in the first instance, for the people. Incidentally, it might be possible to amend the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 to a considerable extent to accommodate quite a number of the issues that have been debated here. There is a lot of work to be done in that regard and it may well come to pass, but if we allow the situation to continue without doing anything about the pressing issues that have been presented to us, despite what we have learned during the course of the committee's hearings and from our own history, as a committee, we will be in default and simply in denial. We cannot continue down that road.

I want to make a point about equality. I recognise there is a right to life, an issue which has been raised and one we have to treat seriously. Regardless of whether it is a devolved right, a primary right or a secondary right, in certain circumstances the life of a mother was at serious risk prior to the 2013 Act and it was a question of having an equal right. It was proved in a number of tragic cases that, depending on the weaker of the two rights, the mother had no right. As I mentioned, we need to remember the equality legislation and be absolutely certain. The general principle of equality is prevalent in our society. We need to recognise that what we will do in the future must have some regard for and the recognition of the need to have a certain degree of equality. However, there should be a clear divide. To my mind, this becomes most obvious in a case in which it is determined at an advanced stage of a pregnancy with no fatal foetal abnormality that a termination is desirable on socioeconomic grounds. It becomes a little hazy at that stage.

The people have expressed their concern about a possible attempt to deal with children with Down's syndrome in a way that they would not find acceptable. There is no great demand or support among the people who will make the decision for such an approach. The reason is simple. We all know children and adults with Down's syndrome who are generally regarded as friendly and helpful and not seen to intrude on anybody. They are a threat to no one. We need to keep that in mind when we are devolving responsibility, in so far as that is what we are doing. It is the responsibility of the people who will deal with this matter in due course.

I mention the possibility of court challenges, an issue which has been covered by a number of speakers. Anything can be challenged in the courts. That is part and parcel of and the basis for our legislation. If we exclude anything from the right of the courts, the question of the separation of powers will arise. The two shall stand alone and not cross over each other. At all times, we have to operate and move in the knowledge that what we do by way of legislation in these Houses is subject to challenge in the courts on some grounds. I do not believe in the theory that any legislation is beyond challenge, even if we might try to state that is the case.

Much of the issue surrounding decriminalisation has resolved itself. However, other problems have presented.

The availability of morning-after and online abortion services has overtaken the legislators and the people in the intervening period between 1983 and now. It would be wrong to allow a situation to prevail whereby women availing of that treatment would be criminalised. I do not think we can do that because then we would be condemning them to seek treatment that is illegal, and that might happen under unsupervised conditions. Again, we are back to the point that the availability of medical and social advice is needed at that time, or may be needed at a particular time. Yet, we are suggesting that we forget about it and that it does not happen. We have to accept as a fact that those processes and procedures are available now and that they are taking place now.

Earlier, I mentioned the availability of counselling. I believe that the extent to which adequate counselling of a supportive and non-directive nature becomes available is of singular importance when it comes to any legislation in future. A comparison can be made with places like Sweden and Switzerland, where there is a major difference in the extent to which abortions are performed. It suggests that the level of counselling in one place or the other is having an impact for one reason or another.

I intend to finish as I started. I am not in favour of abortion but I recognise that in our modern society there are reasons, and a need, for some change to accommodate the evolution of our society. Furthermore, we have an obligation to do whatever we can do to facilitate the people in coming to those conclusions.